Vive La France!

carmanmemoranda said:
And some people still think he is a real law expert.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of what MBK claims to be professionally. Sometimes he gives the impression he is a lawyer, and other times runs a multinational business, possibly to do with yachts. I've met plenty of lawyers who struggle with anything outside their own area of expertise, so that's not conclusive for me.
 
JonathanM said:
Sometimes he gives the impression he is a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Not a prayer. He became far too angry and abusive, when I pointed out the two doctors (pg 29) thing to him.
I'd still like him to answer:
How come hes ok with the word 'authorise' when describing the conclusion of the two doctor/sign off process, when it's not worded in the Abortion Act?

It's a simple question.
 
I have been clear.

Doctors are required on a daily basis to authorise procedures based on the medical aspects of all kinds of treatment. I said this ages ago. "What is the best course of action to treat the patient?". Ultimately the patient consents - so the final "approval" is always with the patient. A doctor can only carry out treatment that the patient has authorised, otherwise in the case of surgery they potentially commit assault. In 90% of abortions, there is no best course of action to treat the patient. They are simply given the two pills and get on with it. Even when the abortion is medical, it is often not the same team doing the "work" as those documenting the opinion.

In the case of abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is illegal unless two doctors have formed the opinion in good faith that the abortion meets the grounds that are defined as lawful. It is very clear in the law and also in the guidance to medical practitioners - This is not an approval of any kind. Neither is it a statement of fact or authorisation. It is simply a mechanism to make the unlawful termination, lawful. It does not include any moral or medical judgement and they are not accountable if it turns out that they were wrong (e.g. terminating on the grounds of minor disability post 24 weeks).
 
Of course words have meaning. "its clearly an approval" is clearly incorrect when the declaration says:

"We hereby certify that we are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that"

Something that is "clearly an approval to proceed" would say:

"We hereby approve the termination to proceed"

and thats without even looking at the abortion act or the guidance to practitioners.
 
JonathanM said:
I'm not aware of what MBK claims to be professionally. Sometimes he gives the impression he is a lawyer, and other times runs a multinational business, possibly to do with yachts. I've met plenty of lawyers who struggle with anything outside their own area of expertise, so that's not conclusive for me.
Click to expand...
If I wanted the forum trolls to know what I do for a living, I would say so, perhaps with a link to my bio. This forum allows some level of anonymity and as long as I remain silent on my professional status etc.. I am free to offer all sorts of suggestions.

The only thing I have ever claimed to be on here - is a commercial skipper, ex-plod advanced motorcycle instructor - both of which are/were hobby jobs.
 
motorbiking said:
Of course words have meaning. "its clearly an approval" is clearly incorrect when the declaration says:
Click to expand...
Someone asks for something and someone else says (effectively) yes, or no. That's approval. Obviously others see that as well with the number of documents that do use the word.
 
I think that is an example of what some here like to a call a straw man.

Can I have the 15mm spanner, sure here you go. There is no approval in that process. It's a request and an action.

As you know for the abortion act - it is illegal without an opinion, which also has to be certified under separate legislation.

You understand that using the word approval in an overly simplistic (and claiming its real world) manner gets nowhere.
 
motorbiking said:
In the case of abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is illegal unless two doctors have formed the opinion in good faith that the abortion meets the grounds that are defined as lawful. It is very clear in the law and also in the guidance to medical practitioners - This is not an approval of any kind. Neither is it a statement of fact or authorisation.
Click to expand...

But how do you reconcile that with the following post of yours, which seems to be the one which kicked off this whole argument?

motorbiking said:
Make it as big as you like - You don't understand it. The doctors are required to authorise it because they have to assess if the abortion is likely to cause more harm than going term
Click to expand...
 
motorbiking said:
Can I have the 15mm spanner, sure here you go. There is no approval in that process. It's a request and an action.
Click to expand...
I could/should have said, someone asks for permission to do something and someone else says (effectively) yes, or no.
 
motorbiking said:
I think that is an example of what some here like to a call a straw man.

Can I have the 15mm spanner, sure here you go. There is no approval in that process. It's a request and an action.

As you know for the abortion act - it is illegal without an opinion, which also has to be certified under separate legislation.

You understand that using the word approval in an overly simplistic (and claiming its real world) manner gets nowhere.
Click to expand...
Can you answer this question please:

You have waffled on for hundreds of posts damning the word 'approve', even though many learned folk use it as a way of deeming the abortion can go ahead, once the doctors have signed it off. You have repeatedly said that the word 'approve' does not appear in the Act therefore the doctors can't possibly be approving the abortion when they sign it off.

You have referenced the word 'authorise' in at least two posts when describing the exact same process, i.e. the sign off etc.

Why then do you state that approve is not ok and authorise is ok, if both don't appear in the Act? Can you answer this simple question please?
 
Last edited:
motorbiking said:
I have been clear.

Doctors are required on a daily basis to authorise procedures based on the medical aspects of all kinds of treatment. I said this ages ago. "What is the best course of action to treat the patient?". Ultimately the patient consents - so the final "approval" is always with the patient. A doctor can only carry out treatment that the patient has authorised, otherwise in the case of surgery they potentially commit assault. In 90% of abortions, there is no best course of action to treat the patient. They are simply given the two pills and get on with it. Even when the abortion is medical, it is often not the same team doing the "work" as those documenting the opinion.

In the case of abortion. Terminating a pregnancy is illegal unless two doctors have formed the opinion in good faith that the abortion meets the grounds that are defined as lawful. It is very clear in the law and also in the guidance to medical practitioners - This is not an approval of any kind. Neither is it a statement of fact or authorisation. It is simply a mechanism to make the unlawful termination, lawful. It does not include any moral or medical judgement and they are not accountable if it turns out that they were wrong (e.g. terminating on the grounds of minor disability post 24 weeks).
Click to expand...
Waffle.

I'm asking you a straight question here:

Are doctors 'authorising' an abortion when they sign it off after the consultation process. Yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top